Lin

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Robert Lin was convicted after a trial before a magistrate judge of failing to obey a lawful order pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a)(2), to return to his car during a traffic stop in Yosemite National Park. The district court upheld the conviction, and we affirm.

Lin argues that the requisite mens rea under 36 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a)(2) should be specific intent, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because it did not establish his specific intent. Lin also argues that his conviction should be overturned based on the affirmative defense of necessity. On appeal, after a finder of fact has convicted the defendant, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Crawford, 239 F.3d 1086, 1092 (9th Cir.2001). A lower court’s interpretation of a regulation is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Hoff, 22 F.3d 222, 223 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). The application of the necessity defense is also reviewed de novo. See United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2001).

Lin formulates his view of the requisite mens rea under 36 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a)(2) as: the Government must…